Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dæl wrote:

If someone is trying to kill you you have the right to stop them, if the only way of doing so means that you must take their life then that is an unfortunate consequence. You do not suddenly get carte blanche to kill someone because they tried to kill you. Go and read the wiki article on reasonable force I posted.

I'm familiar with reasonable force. I find it pretty pernicious.

To use my example once again, if someone's coming at you with a knife, shooting them dead is not the only possible way to stop them. You could, for example, spend years practicing the kicking of rocks, and bean a guy with whatever street debris happens to be nearby hard enough to stun him. You could train a herd of urchins to tie someone's shoelaces together in record time. You could pull out your can of WD-40 and your trusty lighter and, by spinning around really, really fast, create a protective shield of flame around yourself.

Or you could shoot the guy that showed every intent of ending your life and have a much better chance of actually surviving versus trying some bonkers non-lethal technique.

If someones coming at you with a knife, chances are they're knifing you by the time a gun is out anyway.

Then again...

This represents imminent danger for sure.

I lost it at that point.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
If someones coming at you with a knife, chances are they're knifing you by the time a gun is out anyway.

Bu...but... magical protection from guns!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
If someones coming at you with a knife, chances are they're knifing you by the time a gun is out anyway.

Bu...but... magical protection from guns!

I'll just throw this out there again:



1.35 seconds is pretty darn good for a draw from surrender and three aimed, on-target shots. I'd put that up against a knife any old time.

And when every policeman is a combination of Billy the Kid and Superman on the draw then I will give you that point

 MrDwhitey wrote:
If someones coming at you with a knife, chances are they're knifing you by the time a gun is out anyway.

Then again...

This represents imminent danger for sure.

I lost it at that point.

Ok, that video was hilarious.

It doesn't take a whole lot of time to draw a weapon, especially when the policeman is actually trained in the use of a firearm.

When you actually train with something you use, you are able to deploy it faster.


Thats why US cops keep their hands on their weapons and keep their weapon pointed away from the potential threat. Also, when approaching a traffic stop they will remain behind and to the side of the person in the car. This makes it much more difficult for the person to pull something on the officer without them noticing.

Just because I like them:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats why US cops keep their hands on their weapons and keep their weapon pointed away from the potential threat. Also, when approaching a traffic stop they will remain behind and to the side of the person in the car. This makes it much more difficult for the person to pull something on the officer without them noticing.

And guess what, UK police are quite capable of stopping cars safely without being armed!

Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.

Of course that test only applies on level ground with no obstructions and the knife is already visible. At the point which a suspect has visably drawn a lethal weapon the officer will have drawn his weapon as well.

 Jackal wrote:
Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.

Really? I've never once felt the need to be armed when I see an armed police officer. I've seen this thrown out a ton in here, I wonder what emperical evidence there is to back it up?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats why US cops keep their hands on their weapons and keep their weapon pointed away from the potential threat. Also, when approaching a traffic stop they will remain behind and to the side of the person in the car. This makes it much more difficult for the person to pull something on the officer without them noticing.

And guess what, UK police are quite capable of stopping cars safely without being armed!

Guess what, our cops do hundreds of thousands of traffic stops a year without anything happening either.

But in the cases where a traffic stop is the scene of an altercation your cops are woefully underequipped.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Just because I like them:

That almost made me cry. Halfway draw, stop, support hand meanders on over to disengage safety, stop, worst press out in history, think about shooting, stop...shoot.

djones520 wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.

Really? I've never once felt the need to be armed when I see an armed police officer. I've seen this thrown out a ton in here, I wonder what emperical evidence there is to back it up?

I wonder if by people he meant criminals, as to be fair, criminals are still people.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course that test only applies on level ground with no obstructions and the knife is already visible. At the point which a suspect has visably drawn a lethal weapon the officer will have drawn his weapon as well.

The point I made earlier that specifics can be found to counter pretty much any general point

However, the reports of the UK police indicate that they can get on very well without arming every officer.

I should have been a tad more clear, thanks MrDwhitey

Knew someone was going to be sarcastic.
Because these days, even an opinion can be wrong

What you are suggesting is that its a good idea to bring more fire arms into the general population?
And that will serve the purpose of helping to reduce risks and crime?

Now, over here there are alot of crimes that involve a knide/blade of some description.
If a criminal knows that police officers are armed, why would he use a knife instead of obtaining a gun instead?

Guns have a much larger threat range, and for someone thats unstable, thats not allways much fun for the public.

It will simply cause shootings to rise.




And MrDwhitey - While im affraid you are true, one has to wonder at times.

Frankly, I wonder if many non-criminals are people too. (this isn't actually directed at anyone in this thread by the way guys)

Another fun video:




I have to say, I laugh a lot at these.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.

Really? I've never once felt the need to be armed when I see an armed police officer. I've seen this thrown out a ton in here, I wonder what emperical evidence there is to back it up?

I wonder if by people he meant criminals, as to be fair, criminals are still people.

Yes, but criminals already have incentive to buy guns if guns are illegal.

If no/very few law abiding citizens have a gun, then the Criminal can make a simple black market investment to give himself the advantage in any situation where he is robbing a house or mugging someone. He has the gun and he doesn't have to worry about his victim pulling a gun on him, effectivly allowing him to operate with impunity.

Criminals are almost exclusivly cowards. They don't go after something unless they think they can get away with it.

Lets see some statistics comparing robberies between the UK and US. I would wager you would have more Robberies in the UK then in the US. For the uninformed, a burglery is breaking and entering a residence with the intention of commiting a crime(usually theft) without the use of force. Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take an item of value with the threat of force.

Now the results,

in 2006 the rate of Robbery in the US per 100,000 was around 150 http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=452


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/robbery-rate-worse-than-us--study-14896827.html

Here we find that the Robbery rate in 2010 was 188 per 100,000

Heck, this United Nations study found that the UK has the worst Robbery, Rape, and Burglary rate of any developed nation.

The only bright spot is that you have is Intentional Homicide and Major Assaults.


So less people die, but overall more are robbed, raped, and burgled. Not exactly flattering for your law enforcement or overall public safety.

The UK counts a lot of "minor" crimes in their overall crime statistics that other countries don't.

Robbery, Rape, and Burglery seem to be universal definitions.

Name something that would fall into the above catagories that other countries wouldn't count.

This came up in the last crime thread. The UK counts a number of lesser assault charges towards the overall "violent crime" statistics that the USA doesn't, for example.

But that doesn't answer my question.

Is there anything in Robbery, Rape, or Burglery that isn't normally counted.


And I believe this was a UN study using UN methods of measurement, not UK methods of crime measurement.

Wow that Mythbuster's video was just bad XD Adam come on buddy! You even have a quick draw holster! I think my average draw to shot time is under two seconds depending on where I'm carrying and what I'm carrying. For example unless I'm on my college campus I carry my 1911 at condition one, round in chamber, hammer back, safety on. I really don't need the latter... 1911s have three independent safeties and the grip safety and trigger are more then enough. Similarly my M&P40C is more compact but because it doesn't have a physical or grip safety (like most LEO weapons as I'm lead to understand) I usually carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, chamber empty) and my draw to fire time still comes in at under three seconds.

Draw times are also going from "Cold" no preparation or "slight of hand" to first shot fired, usually with decent sight picture.

I could probably get my times down and accuracy up (not that it really matters at the close combat engagement range... hard NOT to hit what you're shooting at there) but I don't have near enough time to make the range sadly and weapon empty drills can only do so much.

Bottom line, practice and training make perfect.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Yes, but criminals already have incentive to buy guns if guns are illegal.

If no/very few law abiding citizens have a gun, then the Criminal can make a simple black market investment to give himself the advantage in any situation where he is robbing a house or mugging someone. He has the gun and he doesn't have to worry about his victim pulling a gun on him, effectivly allowing him to operate with impunity.

Criminals are almost exclusivly cowards. They don't go after something unless they think they can get away with it.

But then you need to think about the black market economy. If guns are illegal, that makes them pricier on the black market, due to the difficulty of smuggling them under the radar. It would take either a very desperate criminal (ergo poor) or a very rich target to 'justify' (not in the literal sense of the word) robbing someone. In the former, they're probably robbing because they don't have enough money to pay the rent, never mind buying a gun!

And the reverse is also the same. They don't have to worry about the victim pulling a gun on them, ergo they don't need a gun to protect themselves from the victim if they fight back.

You know what? I think I found out the reason you all don't want your officers armed: (slightly nsfw)

The picture. Explaination please.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Is there anything in Robbery, Rape, or Burglery that isn't normally counted.

I personally can't remember and I don't really feel like going through the crime statistics report again.

And I believe this was a UN study using UN methods of measurement, not UK methods of crime measurement.

... however, based on the UK methods of reporting crime. Which is the issue here. Some countries will fold "crime x" and "crime y" into an overall "crime z", whilst others will report them all separately. When the UN is looking at "crime z", some countries will have a much higher rate of "crime z" because they report "crime x+y" in with crime z, whilst others report them separately.

Crime Z, shoot for the head.

Yeah, but I can't see these 3 sections having something that seems totally unrelated folded in.

They arn't exactly ambigious classifications like Domestic Violence or Public Disturbance.